Is it a stable nuclear family that leads to greater violence, gang formation and drug use, or is it fragmented single-parent families?

Not blaming the single parents (usually single mothers), but rather because they don't have someone to look after the kids while they work, and they can't spend much time with the kids themselves (because they have to work) it leads to these kind of outcomes where traumatised and neglected children turn to their peers and outside social groups like gangs?

In some communities, it's considered a mark of pride among young men, to impregnate a lot of women and have multiple "baby mamas" that aren't in a long term relationship with them.

In other communities (like South Asian communities) there might still be poverty, but less a focus on gangs and drug use, because they live in large households with multiple generations, and they have a considered approach to marriage. Probably because any choice that someone makes to procreate with someone will join together two massive families and affect them all?

It's interesting for sure.

I think that there are some things that are beneficial about the nuclear family - the idea of self determination and freedom, escape from abusive parents etc - but it has its downsides as you eloquently depict. And then the large family, such as Indian families, they look after each other in hard times, but at the same time self determination is lower, marriage is often predetermined by family not individual choice, and romantic love isn't valued as much.

I wonder if there can be a "best of both worlds" situation? Perhaps to be found in "intentional communities" where people may or may not be blood related, but make pacts to support each other like family?